I don't get it. Why is Paulson's latest move so bad? It's sounds better than before.

[ContinentalOp]

Originally we were supposed to be buying totally worthless investment products that nobody else wanted to touch. This would have bailed the banks out and let them carry on as usual, free of any consequences for their risky behavior. This is the ultimate example of socializing corporate risk while letting them keep the profits.

We were told this was necessary because of a "credit crisis." At the time, many people here asked why the government couldn't just loan that money directly to businesses who need it. Or at least loan the money to the banks with the stipulation that they have to use it to keep on lending.

Now we're hearing that we're actually going to buy a stake in the banks, let them keep their bad debt, but essentially give them a cash infusion so they can keep on lending. If the problem really is a credit crisis, isn't this the best course of action? Isn't that what many people here asked for originally?

[liberalmuse]

1. Last I heard, he was giving our bailout money to the credit card companies...

to 'jumpstart credit'. Bullshit! While I agree we shouldn't be investing in those shit loans that the crooks were selling off, we do need to invest in the American middle and working class, not the investor class. We're supposed to swallow that the bailout funds are essentially going to loan sharks. This will not jumpstart credit. Wall Street is still getting their bonuses, BTW. On OUR dime.

[still_one]

3. Everything you say is true, but more importantly he has no accountability

He lied, and Congress should impeach him, stop further money outflows to him to manage, and put everything on hold until the next administration takes over

[ContinentalOp]

10. Well, that would be cool if they can pull it off.

I guess that would allow Obama a way to have supported it during the election when it was politically necessary and then back away from it later? Assuming for a moment though that there's no stopping the money flowing out the door, isn't this somewhat better than buying bad debts?

[TexasObserver]

4. Indeed. Don't go for the head fake. Now comes the real scam.

Credit Card debt? If they spend a dime on that, they're using OUR money to save THEIR friends.

[SammyWinstonJack]

6. They've been using our money to save their friends and finance their friends all along.

Nothing new there. Tax cuts for the richest among us, war profits for Halliburton/KBR, etc. It's all the same taxpayer funded scam these past 8 yrs.

[ContinentalOp]

11. So what exactly is the new plan? Buying bad credit card debt instead? -nt-

[ContinentalOp]

7. But if there IS a credit crisis, isn't this a better solution? Or not?

Do you think there isn't actually a credit crisis, or that this move won't actually help the problem? I really don't understand what's going on.

I, like many people here opposed the bailout, mainly because I don't like the idea that we would be buying up worthless mortgage backed securities and other junk investment products that nobody wants to buy on the open market. But as long as Paulson has the money and he's going to do something with it, isn't buying a stake in the banks better than buying their bad debts?

[still_one]

2. because the SOB sold a bill of goods to us, and it was effectively a lie

but more important than even that, he unilaterally decided to change the agreement without going to Congress

who the f*ck does he think he is?

He is allocating the money without any oversight, and now using it for a purpose NOT approved

I suspect he gave the money to his friends, i.e. goldman sax and others, and are now going to let the others waste away

while now turning to through this money at the credit card companies, and purposes, who the hell knows?

Congress should demand his replacement NOW

We are in a major crisis, and this jerk decides to change the rules at HIS call, I say bullshit to him

[ContinentalOp]

12. Well, duh. It was obvious from the beginning that it was all a big con.

And wasn't the bill written in such a way that he basically has no oversight or accountability and can use the money as he pleases anyway? Is it really such a surprise that this happened? It's why many of use opposed the bailout in the first place.

But given the circumstances isn't it actually good news that we're not buying useless derivatives?

[Atman]

5. Because it's ALL just a fucking LIE.

They're simply stealing the money from the U.S. Treasury. Their lame re-explanations don't make it any better.

.

[SammyWinstonJack]

8. !

:thumbsup:

[ContinentalOp]

9. Well, yeah. I agree.

Unfortunately Obama voted for this. But as long as we're getting screwed, isn't it better for us to buy a stake in banks rather than buy totally worthless pieces of paper?

[ContinentalOp]

13. I'm still curious about this. Still haven't really gotten a clear answer.

Can anyone explain for an economic dummy?